About your Search

20130318
20130326
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)
of it. tea party conservative ron paul explained why he is against d.o.m.a. the defense of marriage act. >> it's a very complicated issue. i've always said the state has the right to decide. and i don't think the federal government should tell anybody how they should decide this. >> reporter: the supreme court will hear arguments about d.o.m.a. on wednesday. supreme court ruling are expected in june. >>> more details now on what the decision on prop eight could mean for california and the rest of the country. among the scenarios if the court strikes down prop-8 as a violation of constitutional rightings, same-sex marriage would become -- constitutional rights, same-sex marriage would become law. or they could decide states will decide. while those results are not clear cut, some legal experts think the lower court rulings would stand allowing same-sex couples to marry in california. >>> david stevenson will have live reports throughout the day. we will go in-depth on the case and gauge reaction from washington, d.c. to the bay area. >>> bay area postal workers fight to keep saturday d
incomparable in the house. the idea that it drove the adoption of doma -- >> it was an election year and a people do not have the political power to protect themselves. >> i want to ask whether, are there any intermediate positions between striking doma down entirely end up holding? i do not think so. >> you said that there are different cases. they are. statesstion is, do these have the authority to retain the traditional state of marriage? not that they have to. need a? it is the question on both. >> not asking you to yield their position. are there any interim positions in the case that the court could find between on the one hand doing what they suggested, to stay -- say the states have the full power to uphold or to change or do anything was same- sex marriages? and what the strongest view of the challengers is in prop. 8 our calls distinguishes unconstitutional. is a standing argument. >> it would be in a weird way. it would probably mean that there be marriage equality restored in california. >> why? quiet the judgments stays in effect. the that is clear at all. it is more tha
the constitutionality of doma and then after it lost in district court, it decided not to defend the constitutionality, but that a heightened standard of review was applicable, and under that heightened standard of review, it could not pass constitutional muster. when the district court does this in the case before the court now, the house of representatives known as the bipartisan legal advisor regroup entered the case to defend on behalf of the house, claiming that the law was unconstitutional, which meant that the -- that at least there would be an adversary present, which there would be in the court appeals case. in the court appeals by a vote of to do want to buy they struck down the line and the cases now before the court. when the court granted review, it did something quite interesting. although both the house and the solicitor general as well as the plaintiffs all believe there is jurisdiction, the court independently raise the jurors -- the question of whether there's jurisdiction or not ended appointed a harvard law professor to appear as amica as to argue that everybody involved is wrong a
clinton recently wanting the supreme court to overterm o dd doma and was that a cat take list for hillary clinton? >> i think we can probably guess pretty well that people's family influences were there on this issue. hillary clinton said it herself in the clip you played. and certainly president obama was moved as he said by his daughters and his wife. so i would imagine that the former president and chelsea had an influence on where the secretary ended up, as well. >> brian, last question. just you and me and a couple people watching. are there any more big named announcements in the works for you? >> well, we've seen seen a lot of really exciting developments on the issue of marriage. >> folks like -- >> you know, you never know who the next person will be. but i'm sure we'll be hearing from more people in the coming days and weeks. >> i tried. brian, thank you so much. appreciate it. >>> new york mayor michael bloomberg is proposing yet another health initiative. this one would require stores to keep tobacco products hidden in cabinets behind curtains, under the counter. this idea com
, republicans came in though defend doma. the case comes in a different political climate than four years ago when prop 8 became law. an example, yesterday republican adviser karl rove said in the next election he could see pub one of the republican candidates favoring same-sex marriage. >> we will be covering a lot next week. thank you very much. >>> an apology from the irs over a training video that parodied star trek and paid for by taxpayer money. kelly o'donnell is in washington with more on that story. good morning to you. >> reporter: good morning. well, anytime your tax money is wasted, it's frustrating but especially so when it is the irs that's accused of poor judgment. a congressional committee found this star trek spoof didn't have any training value in it at all. to boldly go hollywood. ♪ the irs spent $60,000. >> captain log. >> reporter: making two videos including this elaborate "star trek" parody. >> sorry about the uniforms, the dry cleaner gave us the wrong order. >> how fast can you get out of here. >> reporter: and of course mr. spock. but they aren't actors. no they ar
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6 (some duplicates have been removed)